Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Case history; Prior: Cert. to the Supreme Court of California Holding; The failure to grant this indigent petitioner seeking initial review of his conviction the services of an advocate, as contrasted with an amicus curiae, which would have been available to an appellant with financial means, violated petitioner's rights to fair procedure and equality under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.
The plaintiffs appealed the decision of the district court to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filing their initial brief on May 22, 2000, and arguing the case on October 5 of the same year in front of a three-judge panel. Arguments were similar to those made in the district court, except for those ...
CHIPPEWA FALLS — Briefs in the Lily Peters murder case have been filed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, which will determine whether the defendant remains in adult court or if the matter will ...
The report has an immediate purpose: to help the court determine an appropriate sentence as well as aide in officer sentencing recommendations. The report serves to collect objective, relevant, and factual information on a specific defendant. [7] Since the advent of the sentencing guidelines, the importance of the presentence reports has increased.
A federal judge on Thursday denied Trump White House official Peter Navarro's bid to remain out of prison while he appeals his contempt of Congress conviction for refusing to cooperate with an ...
The Supreme Court rejected a bid by former Donald Trump adviser Peter Navarro to avoid reporting to prison to serve a four-month sentence for defying a congressional subpoena.
The Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution (found in Art. III, Section 2, Clause 1) as embodying two distinct limitations on exercise of judicial review : a bar on the issuance of advisory opinions , and a requirement that parties must have standing .